Looks like Tuchel turned us down, not the other way around according to BILD

[Leftback99]

Would make sense. It was too obvious a deal. Shame.

 

[Judas]

It's a bit pathetic this is being spun as new news, and people choosing to pretend it is as a lovely excuse to bash the club.

 

[elmo]

I don't like the word "deadwood" tbh, and I don't even think there's much of it in the squad anymore. And the ones who don't have a lot to contribute anymore are almost certainly gone in the next 12-24 months anyway. And that's basically only Eriksen, Lindelöf, Antony and Casemiro.

Biggest one is Rashford.

 

[Judas]

Biggest one is Rashford.

Scary that he produced our best chances in our last game. How bad are the rest then?

 

[Highfather_24]

Imagine us having a manager who doesn't use a 3-1-6 system with a washed up Casemiro as the only midfielder in the base

From what I've seen Nagelsmann is also someine who prefers using the 3-1-6, and ran into similar problems because they had Kimmich playing in that role, and they would get countered a lot(sounds familiar?)

Tuchel favours more of a 3-2-5, as we have all seen. Tuchel really fits us well, Ugarte-Mainoo-Mount, is very similar to Kante--Kovacic--Mount, we just need a Jorginho type.

 

[DOTA]

Both sides sensibly realising they have too distant visions of what the role should involve. A sign we are serious going forward about separating recruitment from managers. Which is probably wise.

 

[DJ_21]

From what I've seen Nagelsmann is also someine who prefers using the 3-1-6, and ran into similar problems because they had Kimmich playing in that role, and they would get countered a lot(sounds familiar?)

Tuchel favours more of a 3-2-5, as we have all seen. Tuchel really fits us well, Ugarte-Mainoo-Mount, is very similar to Kante--Kovacic--Mount, we just need a Jorginho type.

We’d tried signing an upgrade from a Jorginho type when we went after FDJ all summer.

 

[DJ_21]

Biggest one is Rashford.

True. But he seems invincible apparently. Managers are scared to drop him. I like the managers that use the approach where they drop players to try and get a reaction. He should be dropped for a few games and bring him on in like the last 20 against tired legs to see if that helps him. Easier to score against tired defenders.

 

[Highfather_24]

We’d tried signing an upgrade from a Jorginho type when we went after FDJ all summer.

That was 2 years ago. There were many playmaking #8s in the market the last 2 windows, and we didnt go for them. We spent over 200M on our midfield, and over 600M overall. No excuses.

 

[Avero]

Thomas Tuchel would crash and burn here in about 12 months like he has at every team he ever managed. Don't understand why so many on here rated him so highly.

 

[UnofficialDevil]

I'm genuinely curious as to where 'management' in football is really going.

With all these new directors being setup behind the manager to do various tasks, what's left for the manager to do?
If you have a director now scouting new players and buying them, directors setting the type of football you play, directors telling you where the club is going, what's the point of having a manager? Why would anyone want to be a manager?
What's your role? to turn up at 3pm on a Saturday, walk into the dressing room and say to a bunch of players you haven't picked, signed, or developed tactics for, and just raise a thumb and go "go win the game lads"...?

It actually reminds me of a conversation my brother-in-law had with me a few years ago. He worked in publishing for 40 years, trained as a graphic designer, worked on books/magazines all over the world for blue chip companies, but at some point about 15years ago, it all changed.
As a designer he was trained in typography, photography, illustration and design, he was in charge of anything art wise and had spent years honing his craft. But slowly people like marketing directors (who he called failed designers) and sales directors, with no training in art & design, would start to make design decisions, and pretty dreadful ones at that. Over ten years it eventually got to a point where he was basically designing for them and not his clients, had no control over what anything looked like and the designs being knocked out were appalling, I always remember his quote..."like someone had put all the words and graphics into a canon and just fired it at the page.." which ironically, affected sales, because as he said, deep down people know what looks good and what looks shit. A classic case of 'too many chiefs and not enough Indians'. Eventually he left the design business because he'd had enough of it, despite being an award winning designer. You can sort of see it in TV advertising, it's garbage these days compared to well thought out ads of a few decades ago.

Thinking about the way clubs see managers now, it does make me wonder where all this is going to lead. Are we looking at a massive shift, where basically a Dave Bassett type could manage a football club, because there's bugger all left for him to do?

Yep. I agree with this questioning. Think I prefer the old version.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

It's a bit pathetic this is being spun as new news, and people choosing to pretend it is as a lovely excuse to bash the club.

Also, I read this as Tuchel saying he wanted certain conditions and us saying “you can’t have those conditions”?

That isn’t him turning us down (to me).

 

[AneRu]

Both sides sensibly realising they have too distant visions of what the role should involve. A sign we are serious going forward about separating recruitment from managers. Which is probably wise.

He is a very good manager and could have done some really good things here but it was right that we didn't cave in and give him total control. Managers have routinely sunk us in the market by going for their personal favourites, on terms which hurt us, then weaponizing our internal politics to turn the fans against the management to cover their own mistakes.

There was a time when Bernado Silva and Fabinho were doing well and available at £40m each at Monaco. I think Mendes tried very hard to link them to us but we didn't do it because of Mourinho's fetish with players closing in on 30. We signed Matic the summer Liverpool went on to sign Fabinho and got exactly a half a good season from Matic. Bernado later went to City and we bet it all on Sanchez.

Woodward was really bad but his biggest mistake was in deferring too much to managers and refusing to build a structure because his ego couldn't let him take a step back from the glamour and attention that comes with transfer business.

If we had appointed Rangnick as DOF circa 2018/19 with the resources we have wasted on garbage we would have been in a couple of title races by now. So it's right that we refused to be sucked into another manager dominated system, we have a billion pounds worth of reasons why. The onus is now on Berrada, Ashworth and Wilcox to get creative, look at the underlying data, identify a young mentally resilient coach and snap him up.

 

[AneRu]

Yep. I agree with this questioning. Think I prefer the old version.

The old version is flawed in that not every manager is great in the market and not all of them can overcome their egos. We are currently a living and walking example of why it's dangerous to let a manager lead the squad building exercise, ETH £600m later hasn't delivered and is disowning all his poor signings.

 

[Someone]

I'm genuinely curious as to where 'management' in football is really going.

With all these new directors being setup behind the manager to do various tasks, what's left for the manager to do?
If you have a director now scouting new players and buying them, directors setting the type of football you play, directors telling you where the club is going, what's the point of having a manager? Why would anyone want to be a manager?
What's your role? to turn up at 3pm on a Saturday, walk into the dressing room and say to a bunch of players you haven't picked, signed, or developed tactics for, and just raise a thumb and go "go win the game lads"...?

It actually reminds me of a conversation my brother-in-law had with me a few years ago. He worked in publishing for 40 years, trained as a graphic designer, worked on books/magazines all over the world for blue chip companies, but at some point about 15years ago, it all changed.
As a designer he was trained in typography, photography, illustration and design, he was in charge of anything art wise and had spent years honing his craft. But slowly people like marketing directors (who he called failed designers) and sales directors, with no training in art & design, would start to make design decisions, and pretty dreadful ones at that. Over ten years it eventually got to a point where he was basically designing for them and not his clients, had no control over what anything looked like and the designs being knocked out were appalling, I always remember his quote..."like someone had put all the words and graphics into a canon and just fired it at the page.." which ironically, affected sales, because as he said, deep down people know what looks good and what looks shit. A classic case of 'too many chiefs and not enough Indians'. Eventually he left the design business because he'd had enough of it, despite being an award winning designer. You can sort of see it in TV advertising, it's garbage these days compared to well thought out ads of a few decades ago.

Thinking about the way clubs see managers now, it does make me wonder where all this is going to lead. Are we looking at a massive shift, where basically a Dave Bassett type could manage a football club, because there's bugger all left for him to do?

Completely agree.

I think the only way this works if it's more of a collaborative environment rather than someone calling the shots and another is just coaching.

You don't hire a manager and dictate how he plays, instead you hire a manager that fits how you want the team to play from the beginning and let him do his job.

For recruitment, I believe most top managers now identify where they need to strengthen the team, and are then offered options, and if they ask for someone specific then it has to fall within a certain criteria. For example if a manager asks to spend a 100m on a 30 years old player, the club is within its right to refuse to spend that kind of money, even if available, on that age profile. At the same time you can't force a player on a manager, and you can't have a manager asking for a striker just to be told that we're focusing on midfield instead.

Anyway I believe top clubs specifically require a big personality that can't be pushed around. All successful clubs over the past decade had that. You wouldn't dare force anything on Pep or Klopp, but they still operated collaboratively within their clubs. I'm fairly certain that Fergie didn't get his way all the time, but he never made a fuss about it.

 

[Flying_Heckfish]

Can't blame him. Better to wait and see how the structure works out, if he has to work with them, than just jump into the first big job that's available. He has the luxury of picking his projects.

Might be the case for a few potential managers really. If the new regime shows their ability to execute well, then the club begins to look less of a mess off the pitch, and becomes much more appealing than the binfire it currently is.

If he was asking for essentially the influence ETH has been afforded, then no, it's not the right fit and this was a good outcome.

 

[AneRu]

Completely agree.

I think the only way this works if it's more of a collaborative environment rather than someone calling the shots and another is just coaching.

You don't hire a manager and dictate how he plays, instead you hire a manager that fits how you want the team to play from the beginning and let him do his job.

For recruitment, I believe most top managers now identify where they need to strengthen the team, and are then offered options, and if they ask for someone specific then it has to fall within a certain criteria. For example if a manager asks to spend a 100m on a 30 years old player, the club is within its right to refuse to spend that kind of money, even if available, on that age profile. At the same time you can't force a player on a manager, and you can't have a manager asking for a striker just to be told that we're focusing on midfield instead.

Anyway I believe top clubs specifically require a big personality that can't be pushed around. All successful clubs over the past decade had that. You wouldn't dare force anything on Pep or Klopp, but they still operated collaboratively within their clubs. I'm fairly certain that Fergie didn't get his way all the time, but he never made a fuss about it.

Did you hear what Pep had to say about the Doku signing? I think he literally said he didn't know much about him but their structure brought him up and he is happy they did, or something to that effect.

Like it or not the game has evolved and the impact, be it good or bad, of a signing can be felt by the club long after the manager has left. This is why clubs must insulate themselves from poor managerial decisions.

There are people who specialise on recruitment, who spent days and nights throughout the season just watching players and make it their business to be in touch with that player's camp. A manager, say Ten Hag for example, is navigating a season and worrying about getting sacked by November, won't have time to study a player with the required as thoroughly as a specialist would. By not getting yourself that sort of structure you are just closing yourself out of a lucrative and currently proven way to success.

Just compare United, the money we paid out and the issues we faced and the money made by Dortmund/Leipzig/Porto just from player sales. Real Madrid don't have a much touted structure but whatever version they have works, do you think any of United's managers would have accepted replacing Ronaldo's goals with Vini?

At United we should accept that save for Ole, all the managers we hired are just contractors outsourced to do a job. They don't care about long term implications of their signings because they won't be there long enough to suffer them. Hence you see ETH pushing so hard for Antony and now trying to hide away from culpability as if there is a CEO who wouldn't have briefed him on the costs of the deal.

 

[TrustInJanuzaj]

Hope this stance doesn’t change. Don’t want him here.

 

[flameinthesun]

As said in the other threads, if he wanted control of transfers then he is not the manager for us, no matter how good he is.

 

[doubleohseven]

If he is unavailable, it's down to the likes of Nagelsmann.

He is essentially what EtH was pre-signing to us. Younger, hair and ludicrous fashion.

It's all a bit underwhelming.

 

[Hammondo]

Folks on here talking about United as a ''mess'' or a ''poisoned chalice'' or the ''worst job'' available are thinking from a disgruntled fans perspective. To a manager, this is the apex of managerial jobs. Don't get it twisted, this job is as attractive as it's ever been, we just firstly actually need to let EtH go and have a vacancy and anyone who is anyone will be pining for this job. INEOS made a mess of the EtH thing over the summer. If they wanted to sack him, they should have just done it and not kept him in limbo while they interviewed candidates across Europe. Now with Ruud in place, I'm 100% sure they won't hesitate to sack him when they deem fit as they'll have their interim in place till they hire the long term candidate.

You live in a fantasy world. Maybe after SAF but that was a long time ago, managers are not as interested.

 

[CM]

If this is true then I'm very pleased by the new regime. The days of handing the keys to the castle to the manager has to be over - we should get onboard with the idea that today the coach is just another employee who could be easily replaced.

Except that is pretty much exactly what has been done with the current coach, and he has already proven himself a failure.

 

[Robbie Boy]

Oh right.

 

[Moston Red]

Can you blame him? I wouldn't want anything to do with this mess.

Massive amount of scrutiny and you're never going to have job security when the true talent level of your squad is a finish somewhere between 5th and 7th at a club that believes it has a right to be competing for trophies every season simply because of its history and therefore always has unreasonable expectations.

Quite frankly we're lucky anyone is willing to come here and manage.

Big Sam to the rescue!

 

[SirAF]

Except that is pretty much exactly what has been done with the current coach, and he has already proven himself a failure.

I agree, but I seem to recall that there was said something about United just triggering an extension to his current contract - which preserves his previously agreed transfer influence? I'm happy to be corrected here if it's wrong. However, my point is that the next coach will not be granted that sort of influence.

 

[Lay]

Saved his career.

 

[CM]

I agree, but I seem to recall that there was said something about United just triggering an extension to his current contract - which preserves his previously agreed transfer influence? I'm happy to be corrected here if it's wrong. However, my point is that the next coach will not be granted that sort of influence.

Yep, but again, that can't really count as a win in the book of the 'new regime' until we actually make that change.

Ten Hag has 2 years left on his contract after the extension, he's still involved on transfer policy and he's a terrible coach. If we had brought Tuchel in on a 2 or even 3 year deal and he had some say on transfer policy, the only material differences would be that we have a better coach who might stand a chance making us competitive this season.

It's all well and good to want a coach who is fully aligned on transfer policy and can bring us success on the pitch but we aren't close to having either right now. I'd sooner take my chances on one who meets one of those criteria than being in limbo with a guy who fails on both.

 

[RedChisel]

A bit strange we even bothered to approach and speak to him. Every man and his dog knows Tuchel isn't a toe the company line kind of guy and was always going to want more control than was on offer.

 

[Bright_Eyes]

I'm genuinely curious as to where 'management' in football is really going.

With all these new directors being setup behind the manager to do various tasks, what's left for the manager to do?
If you have a director now scouting new players and buying them, directors setting the type of football you play, directors telling you where the club is going, what's the point of having a manager? Why would anyone want to be a manager?
What's your role? to turn up at 3pm on a Saturday, walk into the dressing room and say to a bunch of players you haven't picked, signed, or developed tactics for, and just raise a thumb and go "go win the game lads"...?

It actually reminds me of a conversation my brother-in-law had with me a few years ago. He worked in publishing for 40 years, trained as a graphic designer, worked on books/magazines all over the world for blue chip companies, but at some point about 15years ago, it all changed.
As a designer he was trained in typography, photography, illustration and design, he was in charge of anything art wise and had spent years honing his craft. But slowly people like marketing directors (who he called failed designers) and sales directors, with no training in art & design, would start to make design decisions, and pretty dreadful ones at that. Over ten years it eventually got to a point where he was basically designing for them and not his clients, had no control over what anything looked like and the designs being knocked out were appalling, I always remember his quote..."like someone had put all the words and graphics into a canon and just fired it at the page.." which ironically, affected sales, because as he said, deep down people know what looks good and what looks shit. A classic case of 'too many chiefs and not enough Indians'. Eventually he left the design business because he'd had enough of it, despite being an award winning designer. You can sort of see it in TV advertising, it's garbage these days compared to well thought out ads of a few decades ago.

Thinking about the way clubs see managers now, it does make me wonder where all this is going to lead. Are we looking at a massive shift, where basically a Dave Bassett type could manage a football club, because there's bugger all left for him to do?

Man management and how able you are to motivate, knowing what makes your players tick individually. Tactical knowledge and how to implement it. Having an aura of authority and ability to adequately reward and punish and keep harmony in the dressing room. Knowing what your players can and can't do and creating the right roles and conditions for them. Ability to read the ebb and flow of a game and make changes based on what's happening. And so on.

 

[kerrygold]

Tuchel is the worst kind of control freak - the minimal effort sort. What happened was they asked if he could fill the DoF position. He said he bound do it and was willing to do it…. Then he didn’t show up to meetings, wouldn’t take calls, would only answer texts with a thumbs up or thumbs down emoji.

He would let them know if he wanted a player, but otherwise avoided doing the job entirely. And his player choices were crap.

Tuchel is a great tournament coach. I don’t know why that it is, what about his style lends to that, but he’s the guy that can win the CL and be crap in the league in the same season.

Ten Hag kinda already does that.

I don’t think you missed out on anything with

Also, I read this as Tuchel saying he wanted certain conditions and us saying “you can’t have those conditions”?

That isn’t him turning us down (to me).

I read it as he wanted to be able to determine who he wanted out not who to be brought in. Maybe I misinterpreted. I would take him over ETH. Can’t possibly be as stubborn.

 

[crazysherlock]

I'm genuinely curious as to where 'management' in football is really going.

With all these new directors being setup behind the manager to do various tasks, what's left for the manager to do?
If you have a director now scouting new players and buying them, directors setting the type of football you play, directors telling you where the club is going, what's the point of having a manager? Why would anyone want to be a manager?
What's your role? to turn up at 3pm on a Saturday, walk into the dressing room and say to a bunch of players you haven't picked, signed, or developed tactics for, and just raise a thumb and go "go win the game lads"...?

It actually reminds me of a conversation my brother-in-law had with me a few years ago. He worked in publishing for 40 years, trained as a graphic designer, worked on books/magazines all over the world for blue chip companies, but at some point about 15years ago, it all changed.
As a designer he was trained in typography, photography, illustration and design, he was in charge of anything art wise and had spent years honing his craft. But slowly people like marketing directors (who he called failed designers) and sales directors, with no training in art & design, would start to make design decisions, and pretty dreadful ones at that. Over ten years it eventually got to a point where he was basically designing for them and not his clients, had no control over what anything looked like and the designs being knocked out were appalling, I always remember his quote..."like someone had put all the words and graphics into a canon and just fired it at the page.." which ironically, affected sales, because as he said, deep down people know what looks good and what looks shit. A classic case of 'too many chiefs and not enough Indians'. Eventually he left the design business because he'd had enough of it, despite being an award winning designer. You can sort of see it in TV advertising, it's garbage these days compared to well thought out ads of a few decades ago.

Thinking about the way clubs see managers now, it does make me wonder where all this is going to lead. Are we looking at a massive shift, where basically a Dave Bassett type could manage a football club, because there's bugger all left for him to do?

The biggest reason why old school managers are not feasible in todays game is the cost of players. Roy Keane cost 1 million, Declan Rice cost 100 million.

If there is a club A that hires managers, and the manager wants to buy 3-4 players, it is going to cost at least 200 million. If the manager fails and the club brings in a new manager that wants to play another way, then the club has to again buy players for the new managers playstyle the previous 200 million is wasted and the club again has to restart from scratch.

For club B where the club has a distinct way of playing and the recruitment is done by the club. They only need to find coaches that play using their preferred style. Even if the coach fails, they need to only replace the coach instead of replacing coaches + players.

If successful, both club A and club B have similiar rewards. But if the coach/manager fails club A has cost of coaches + players while club B has only the cost of replacing coaches. Club A's model requires every manager to become successful as every failed manager causes a lot of losses, Club B's model protects the club even if the mangers fail.

 

[big_jeffstar]

mehh this all seems a bit coincidental to me, the reports from trusted sources at the time about how the conversations with Tuchel went were pretty clear and nobody came out to dispute them, then the club hits a bad run of form and magically it was Tuchel who turned US down.. it's just the whole pile-on nature of journalism, take it all with a pinch of salt, they know what they're doing, constantly trying to kick us when we're down.

 

[saivet]

Also, I read this as Tuchel saying he wanted certain conditions and us saying “you can’t have those conditions”?

That isn’t him turning us down (to me).

I see it the same way. Even if he accepted our conditions, I'm not sure it was a guarantee they would have given him the job either. It just would have meant conversations could have continued.

 

[Chelsea Dubbing]

The biggest reason why old school managers are not feasible in todays game is the cost of players. Roy Keane cost 1 million, Declan Rice cost 100 million.

If there is a club A that hires managers, and the manager wants to buy 3-4 players, it is going to cost at least 200 million. If the manager fails and the club brings in a new manager that wants to play another way, then the club has to again buy players for the new managers playstyle the previous 200 million is wasted and the club again has to restart from scratch.

For club B where the club has a distinct way of playing and the recruitment is done by the club. They only need to find coaches that play using their preferred style. Even if the coach fails, they need to only replace the coach instead of replacing coaches + players.

If successful, both club A and club B have similiar rewards. But if the coach/manager fails club A has cost of coaches + players while club B has only the cost of replacing coaches. Club A's model requires every manager to become successful as every failed manager causes a lot of losses, Club B's model protects the club even if the mangers fail.

So in effect, you're pretty much echoing the point I was making. The manager will just be some guy they get in to run a small part of the ship, so the days of a Fergie type manager are done it seems.

 

[Melville Red]

I don’t think it’s set in stone that the director of football or whoever it’s is does the signing without even discussing it with the coach. The coach will know or should know more about football and players in general than these so called wonder directors who have never kicked a ball in their life.
I’m pretty convinced that Ashworth and, who’s the other one? Why do we need two people in similar roles? Too many cooks spring to mind, any how it has to be a grown up conversation.
Example, Ashworth to coach “I think we need a new striker and I’ve drawn up a short list of who we could afford and who I think would fit, who do you fancy? Coach “No. 3 boss”
Ashworth “Bollocks, I thought No. 1 would be better”, coach, “ok let’s go for number 2. Ashworth, “an excellent choice,”.
Something like that any way.
You wouldn’t expect a head chef to produce a great menu at The Ritz without having any input into what ingredients he has to work with would you?

 

[Moriarty]

I'm genuinely curious as to where 'management' in football is really going.

With all these new directors being setup behind the manager to do various tasks, what's left for the manager to do?
If you have a director now scouting new players and buying them, directors setting the type of football you play, directors telling you where the club is going, what's the point of having a manager? Why would anyone want to be a manager?
What's your role? to turn up at 3pm on a Saturday, walk into the dressing room and say to a bunch of players you haven't picked, signed, or developed tactics for, and just raise a thumb and go "go win the game lads"...?

It actually reminds me of a conversation my brother-in-law had with me a few years ago. He worked in publishing for 40 years, trained as a graphic designer, worked on books/magazines all over the world for blue chip companies, but at some point about 15years ago, it all changed.
As a designer he was trained in typography, photography, illustration and design, he was in charge of anything art wise and had spent years honing his craft. But slowly people like marketing directors (who he called failed designers) and sales directors, with no training in art & design, would start to make design decisions, and pretty dreadful ones at that. Over ten years it eventually got to a point where he was basically designing for them and not his clients, had no control over what anything looked like and the designs being knocked out were appalling, I always remember his quote..."like someone had put all the words and graphics into a canon and just fired it at the page.." which ironically, affected sales, because as he said, deep down people know what looks good and what looks shit. A classic case of 'too many chiefs and not enough Indians'. Eventually he left the design business because he'd had enough of it, despite being an award winning designer. You can sort of see it in TV advertising, it's garbage these days compared to well thought out ads of a few decades ago.

Thinking about the way clubs see managers now, it does make me wonder where all this is going to lead. Are we looking at a massive shift, where basically a Dave Bassett type could manage a football club, because there's bugger all left for him to do?

Well said.

 

[mk7]

So in effect, you're pretty much echoing the point I was making. The manager will just be some guy they get in to run a small part of the ship, so the days of a Fergie type manager are done it seems.

And that’s a good thing. You cannot scale up an anomaly. Same in the normal work context: you would not want to bet everything on the super hero type employee who might be able to tackle multiple roles because even if it works out in individual cases, it’s just not something that normally works out in the long run.

 

[croadyman]

A bit strange we even bothered to approach and speak to him. Every man and his dog knows Tuchel isn't a toe the company line kind of guy and was always going to want more control than was on offer.

Thought he had fallout at Chelsea because wanted to just coach the team and let someone else worry about the transfer side

 

[HTG]

Thought he had fallout at Chelsea because wanted to just coach the team and let someone else worry about the transfer side

he simply has a fallout almost everywhere he works. Dortmund were glad to get rid of him, despite his success there. Chelsea were glad to get rid and so were we, until we struggled to find a successor. That can’t be a coincidence. Not three times.

 

[tenpoless]

No United fan should ever trust Bild when it comes into their United rumours.